Royal Gold 400 vs Kodak Max 400

Could someone give me a reasonable comparaison of Kodak Royal Gold 400 &
Kokak Max 400..

Thanks in advance

 

Hey Franz, *I* shoot a lot of Royal Gold, and Like it. Check out the specs
at Kodak.com, but *I* find film is a personal confidence thing, shoot both,
compare and see which one you like best.

 

I don't have enough experience with these films to give a guaranteed answer.
The specifications, advertisements, and reviews suggest, however, that MAX
films are designed for very wide exposure latitude at the expense of some
image quality. They are particularly good for non-adjustable and
inexpensive cameras. For better cameras, the Gold film is probably better.
I have shot a fair amount of Gold 400 (not a lot), and it seems to be
excellent.

 

you might try a roll or two of the professional film; don't let the
"professional" name intimidate you. I've found that Fuji makes an incredible
400 (Fuji NPH maybe?) and 800 (Fuji NPZ). With the 800 film, the color
saturation and grain is awesome.

david

 

Norman,

Let me ask you what type of camera you use? Do you ever find the MAX film is
a bit grainy, and looks underexposed when shooting in low light with a
flash?

I shoot with a Pentax ZX-7 and personally have never shot Kodak Max film. As
a Certified Photographic Consultant, I do get a lot of questions about it
though. Many of the prints I have seen shot with a point and shoot camera
seem to have this look. Before I tell people not to use it, I want to know
if it is the film or the point and shoot camera. Like you, I don't shoot it
much so I can't tell me first hand. I can only tell them what i know. It is
very important to do reaseach before you give advise so any information you
or anyone else can give would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Frederick